Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

'Do Your Homework Before Entering UFO Fray'

page: 4
35
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 08:22 AM
link   
Great post as usual Karl12

I been spending these last few weeks reading the whole FSR (flying saucer review) magazine pdf files from the 1950s up to 1980s now.. its amazing how the phenomena works all these years. in my opinion its not a nuts n bolt alien but something more sinister. Those with religion know what im talking about, those who dont believe in God or anything spiritual will have some difficulty explaining the massive amount of case materials all freely available on the net.

THere are some that may be added to your list

- To be a serious UFO researcher you have to learn Occultism and its history (i think john keel said this)
- you have to do a field work for UFO cases (interview, site visit etc) instead of sitting in your home reading books/internet stuff (i think jaques vallee said this)
- Be prepared to encounter 'high strangeness' when you are deep into UFO research. Better be protected spiritually. (i forgot who said this)
- if the UFO investigator a sensitive (have a kind of 6th sense) then you must be prepared spiritually before entering UFO research as historically a 'sensitive' person are usually the entitiy's target/victim for deception
- The entity behind the UFO phenomena is similar to what the old 'spirit medium' encounter in their session. Liars and Tricksters

While all the scientific research is important for cataloging physical traces of the phenomena, i also suggest all research dont limit itself to just 'science'. there are lot of things thats beyond current understanding , and there are things that cannot be explained by material science.

a little example, while we are driving on a jungle road at night , wilderness all around us , driving from plantation to plantation with no population in between, what can explain a lady wearing white standing alone beside the road ?

a real scientist dont work and judge from a desk , a real scientist will do field work to prove/disprove..




posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Brighter

No. The "Cheshire Cat Effect" properties of UFOs that Hynek was referring to are the exact properties that would lead one to abandon the ETH in favor of something like IDH/EDH.

In fact, all of the points against the ETH that he brought up in "The Case Against E.T." are what lead people to favor things like IDH/EDH.


So you're saying people favor the IDH/EDH over the ETH? If you are, I don't think that's completely true. Using this forum as an example of what people believe, more people on this forum still share the ETH. Which makes sense since a majority of UFO reports claim that an object with 3-dimensional properties moves across the sky, performs strange movements and speeds off. You don't find many reports claiming an object materializes and de-materializes in front of their eyes. If you disagree, lead me to those equally numbered cases. But, going with this IDH/EDH, that would be the optimum way for these "UFOs" go unnoticed, as they apparently attempt to do, wouldn't it? Zap into the 3rd-dimension, zap out. No need to fly off. But, the funny thing is, most of the claims have them jet off in one direction or another. No vanishing into thin air. It's ridiculous. All of these hypothesis have far too many holes in them to be taken seriously.... How does one prove the IDH/EDH? It would be practically impossible... What about Roswell? You would think if there was an objective to not be seen, they would have been pulled back to their other dimension. The supposed alive alien? He just zaps back over and is gone. IDH/EDH is just as ridiculous of a suggestion as the ETH. The entire alien belief is complete fantasy with the given hypotheses not even able to hold up to anything realistic. It's just graping at straws for those intent on this superior alien race answer. Hynek quote of "Putting the cart before the horse" works perfectly.



I know that you want to think that Hynek abandoned the idea that aliens were controlling these craft, but you can't conclude this from the quotes that you are referencing that he made in his later years. All that you can conclude is that:

1) His focus shifted to an interest in the study of UFOs as opposed to questions regarding their origin.

and

2) He brought up some counterarguments to the ETH.

In neither 1) nor 2) do you see Hynek saying that he no longer believes that aliens could be controlling these craft. What you do see is someone who is more interested in raising the social perception of Ufology by turning the focus to the scientific study of what these craft are, as opposed to what might be controlling them.


I don't think he did, it's exactly what he said. He didn't just state to focus your attention away from the ETH only to the objects themselves. That would be up for interpretation as to exactly what he meant. But, he gave point by point reasons why the ETH didn't make sense. He went further stating his last point can't be argued in favor of the ETH. How can you not understand that as Hynek abandoning the hypothesis? For the sake of your own argument, I can see why you continue to hold on to this assumption, but, in reality he clearly had changed his views.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 04:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Ectoplasm8
 



IDH/EDH is just as ridiculous of a suggestion as the ETH. The entire alien belief is complete fantasy with the given hypotheses not even able to hold up to anything realistic. It's just graping at straws for those intent on this superior alien race answer.


Strong words.

The ETH came about as a possible explanation for the appearance of UFO reports - this much we all know. We also know that serious, official and private studies were undertaken that failed to explain all of them. Thus remained a small number of good reports devoid of tags or labels with which we could all agree they were identified.

I gather from your posts that you personally are satisfied they have all been explained...fair enough. However others aren't as certain as you.

For those remaining reports that described aerial objects, multiple witnesses and so forth, it isn't 'ridiculous' to entertain ideas that they possibly came from elsewhere.

It's 'ridiculous' to sweep every last report away with the explanation that they were all delusions, misperceptions and/or aberrant technology. Likewise it's ridiculous to assert the 'aliens' explanation. Whether you like it, or not, people are entitled to speculate from the available evidence (written or personal experiences) and at least wonder at potential origins for the now rare reports of unusual objects.

In the end Hynek and Vallee tended towards a metaterrestrial explanation for UFO sightings. They didn't necessarily preclude the material substance of some UFO reports - after all they *did* have some radar/visual cases. Instead, Hynek was well aware of the 'space is very big' problem and also certain of the existence of solid objects that were not ours.

Ultimately, Hynek was spinning his wheels with metaterrestrials as much as the ETH because they both resist certain answers. If we have metas, where do they come from? If we have ETH, where do they come from? The answers invite god in the gaps thinking where suspended judgement makes more sense.

It's an unavoidable conundrum at the heart of *some* UFO sightings that an Elsewhere is awkwardly implied.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 07:17 AM
link   
Exactly, Kandinsky- and to make assumptions about what technology or 'laws' may or may not exist to allow these 'vehicles' to move or dimension jump is also ridiculous.

I think Dr Hyneks research tells us there may be more than one phenomenon, using more than one technology. I have read of many cases where the witnesses describe an object appearing and/or disappearing in front of their eyes.

Ectoplasm, Your example of Roswell and the surviving alien is particularly specious- you are assuming that if this dimension jumping ability existed in the first place, it would be carried on the aliens person rather than being part of the 'ship' and allow them to 'jump' without it? Quite an assumption.
edit on 8-12-2012 by Thunda because: spelling



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky

Strong words.


Not any stronger than the many passion-filled arguments to a phenomenon of a phenomenon.


The ETH came about as a possible explanation for the appearance of UFO reports - this much we all know. We also know that serious, official and private studies were undertaken that failed to explain all of them. Thus remained a small number of good reports devoid of tags or labels with which we could all agree they were identified.

I gather from your posts that you personally are satisfied they have all been explained...fair enough. However others aren't as certain as you.


No, I'm speaking on the arguments people have on what's piloting what's being seen, as opposed to what's being seen. Two totally different subjects. People are giving hypotheses to a phenomenon that has yet to give us anything that's real. Truly "Putting the cart before the horse". First prove something is actually happening, then figure out what it is. After decades and possibly centuries of sightings, not one ounce of evidence has shown us it's a real phenomenon. Yet, many here will argue days and weeks as if the phenomenon has already been proven to be real. Arguments on hypotheses that have so many holes, they can't be taken that seriously.


For those remaining reports that described aerial objects, multiple witnesses and so forth, it isn't 'ridiculous' to entertain ideas that they possibly came from elsewhere.

It's 'ridiculous' to sweep every last report away with the explanation that they were all delusions, misperceptions and/or aberrant technology. Likewise it's ridiculous to assert the 'aliens' explanation. Whether you like it, or not, people are entitled to speculate from the available evidence (written or personal experiences) and at least wonder at potential origins for the now rare reports of unusual objects.


As I am entitled to think the views of a hypothesis are "ridiculous" as many in the scientific community do. If people take my thoughts personally, they don't understand my point.


In the end Hynek and Vallee tended towards a metaterrestrial explanation for UFO sightings. They didn't necessarily preclude the material substance of some UFO reports - after all they *did* have some radar/visual cases. Instead, Hynek was well aware of the 'space is very big' problem and also certain of the existence of solid objects that were not ours.

Ultimately, Hynek was spinning his wheels with metaterrestrials as much as the ETH because they both resist certain answers. If we have metas, where do they come from? If we have ETH, where do they come from? The answers invite god in the gaps thinking where suspended judgement makes more sense.

It's an unavoidable conundrum at the heart of *some* UFO sightings that an Elsewhere is awkwardly implied.


That would show the perfect reason and example for Hynek to shift his thoughts away from piloting to the actual "objects".



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ectoplasm8

Originally posted by Brighter

No. The "Cheshire Cat Effect" properties of UFOs that Hynek was referring to are the exact properties that would lead one to abandon the ETH in favor of something like IDH/EDH.

In fact, all of the points against the ETH that he brought up in "The Case Against E.T." are what lead people to favor things like IDH/EDH.


So you're saying people favor the IDH/EDH over the ETH? ...



No, not at all. I was commenting on Hynek's beliefs in particular, not those of people in general. You're misunderstanding the domain to which my comments are intended to apply, just as before you misunderstood the domain to which Hynek's comments were intended to apply. Your comments indicate that you continually overgeneralize in order to create an easy target to argue against. The real world and the opinions of mature thinkers are more granular.


Originally posted by Brighter
I know that you want to think that Hynek abandoned the idea that aliens were controlling these craft, but you can't conclude this from the quotes that you are referencing that he made in his later years. All that you can conclude is that:

1) His focus shifted to an interest in the study of UFOs as opposed to questions regarding their origin.

and

2) He brought up some counterarguments to the ETH.

In neither 1) nor 2) do you see Hynek saying that he no longer believes that aliens could be controlling these craft. What you do see is someone who is more interested in raising the social perception of Ufology by turning the focus to the scientific study of what these craft are, as opposed to what might be controlling them.



Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
I don't think he did, it's exactly what he said.


Really? Where did he say "exactly" that - that it is not possible that aliens could be controlling these craft? You keep referring to the fact that he presented some counterarguments to the ETH, without appreciating the obvious fact that the ETH is not the only hypothesis that posits alien involvement with UFOs.


Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
He went further stating his last point can't be argued in favor of the ETH. How can you not understand that as Hynek abandoning the hypothesis?


What statement are you referring to? Give us an exact quote.

And in any case - what difference does it make? His doubts about the ETH are just that - they aren't doubts about the IDH/EDH.


Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
For the sake of your own argument, I can see why you continue to hold on to this assumption, but, in reality he clearly had changed his views.


What precise assumption do you think I am holding? Are you saying that I think that Hynek believed in the ETH at the end of his life? If that's all you're saying, I'm quite comfortable with saying that he had serious doubts about the ETH, which should be clear to anyone who has read the transcript of his talk. But there are two points here:

1) Just because he expressed doubts about the ETH, it doesn't mean that he had totally "abandoned" it. In fact, if you've ever been to an academic conference, you'd know that the reason people bring up certain counterarguments is to see what kind of counterarguments to those counterarguments the audience can come up with. It's a means of using the community to extend a line of inquiry.

And more importantly:

2) Just because Hynek had doubts about the ETH (or even assuming that he actually "abandoned" it), this does not at all imply that Hynek abandoned the idea of alien involvement in form of the IDH/EDH. In fact, as I've said before, the points against the ETH that he brought up are the precise points that lead some people to favor the IDH/EDH.

You're failing to realize that Hynek's "The Case Against E.T." was only meant to argue against the idea that UFOs are physical craft, leaving open the possibility of them as multidimensional. In fact, Hynek modeled the very title of his talk after his friend Jacques Vallee's paper "The Case Against UFOs as Spacecraft". And in the first chapter of Vallee's "Messengers of Deception", entitled "The Case Against the Spacecraft", he presents some of the main points that Hynek later borrowed in his "The Case Against E.T.". All of these points were intended to show the weakness of the ETH in favor of the IDH/EDH. They were not meant to argue against the idea of alien involvement in UFOs, and were in fact used to argue for it, just in a form other than the ETH.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thunda
Exactly, Kandinsky- and to make assumptions about what technology or 'laws' may or may not exist to allow these 'vehicles' to move or dimension jump is also ridiculous.

I think Dr Hyneks research tells us there may be more than one phenomenon, using more than one technology. I have read of many cases where the witnesses describe an object appearing and/or disappearing in front of their eyes.

Ectoplasm, Your example of Roswell and the surviving alien is particularly specious- you are assuming that if this dimension jumping ability existed in the first place, it would be carried on the aliens person rather than being part of the 'ship' and allow them to 'jump' without it? Quite an assumption.


It's a silly argument, which is my point, but I'll entertain it... Spaceship crashes and is in the desert for a few days. Another ship comes back into this dimension and picks up the ship, or in the least the alive "alien" and/or other bodies, then zips back over into the other dimension. Why not zip back into this dimension in the last 60 years of the "alien" being here to zip it back? As "ridiculous" as the entire scenario.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   
There's one more thing that I'd like to mention. You seem to think that because Hynek wanted to focus on questions of the nature of UFOs as opposed to questions of their origin, that implies that Hynek now thought that UFOs were no longer controlled by aliens. If that's your reasoning, then I hope that you can see how a change of focus to an entirely different question doesn't imply a stance regarding another question.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
After decades and possibly centuries of sightings, not one ounce of evidence has shown us it's a real phenomenon. Yet, many here will argue days and weeks as if the phenomenon has already been proven to be real. Arguments on hypotheses that have so many holes, they can't be taken that seriously.


Your conception of evidence is conveniently limited. It's not the case that the only evidence is a physical specimen that can be examined in a lab. It's pretty clear that you haven't done much research into this subject, yet have no problem offering your opinions.


Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
As I am entitled to think the views of a hypothesis are "ridiculous" as many in the scientific community do.


And it seems you yourself don't have much of any evidence to support that value judgement. In fact, there are very accomplished scientists that would disagree with you. But even this is to assume that scientists are somehow in a better position to pass judgement on this phenomenon. In fact, I'd argue that scientists that dismiss this subject out of hand as 'ridiculous' are not acting as scientists when they pronounce such judgements, but expressing their more base, uneducated natures, simply parroting the status quo in order to 'fit in,' without in general having done any real research into the phenomenon.
edit on 8-12-2012 by Brighter because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Yes, and Dr Hynek's approach is a good example of correct scientific thinking rather than the narrow view of the de-bunker. Throughout his life, he continued to research his chosen field and adjusted his views as new evidence presented itself, rather than clinging to the accepted main-stream science viewpoints, like a drowning man clings to a dissolving life raft in a big sea. Always ready to accept new data and examine it on its merits, as opposed to writing things off without proper research because they didnt conform to the current scientific mainstream, there is a lot that people could learn from his approach.

And the Roswell thing- Im glad you admit that its silly, although we differ in its entertainment value. But now we have two spaceships not just dimension jumping, but time traveling too? In what way do you think this is proving a point on critical thinking?
edit on 8-12-2012 by Thunda because: grammar



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Brighter
No, not at all. I was commenting on Hynek's beliefs in particular, not those of people in general. You're misunderstanding the domain to which my comments are intended to apply, just as before you misunderstood the domain to which Hynek's comments were intended to apply. Your comments indicate that you continually overgeneralize in order to create an easy target to argue against. The real world and the opinions of mature thinkers are more granular.


The comment, "what lead people to favor things like IDH/EDH." infers you were talking about people in general, not just Hynek specifically. If you look back over my posts, you would understand the main point is the quoting of Hynek as a support system for this alien belief, by other people. Not to just his belief.

You're also just interpreting and assuming what Hynek's words meant. When in fact, you don't really know. So saying that I misunderstand the "domain" of what Hynek intended, is incorrect. You can state my misunderstanding about your own comments, but not on behalf someone else with your own interpretation of their words.



Really? Where did he say "exactly" that - that it is not possible that aliens could be controlling these craft? You keep referring to the fact that he presented some counterarguments to the ETH, without appreciating the obvious fact that the ETH is not the only hypothesis that posits alien involvement with UFOs.

What statement are you referring to? Give us an exact quote.

And in any case - what difference does it make? His doubts about the ETH are just that - they aren't doubts about the IDH/EDH.


What precise assumption do you think I am holding? Are you saying that I think that Hynek believed in the ETH at the end of his life? If that's all you're saying, I'm quite comfortable with saying that he had serious doubts about the ETH, which should be clear to anyone who has read the transcript of his talk. But there are two points here:

1) Just because he expressed doubts about the ETH, it doesn't mean that he had totally "abandoned" it. In fact, if you've ever been to an academic conference, you'd know that the reason people bring up certain counterarguments is to see what kind of counterarguments to those counterarguments the audience can come up with. It's a means of using the community to extend a line of inquiry.

And more importantly:

2) Just because Hynek had doubts about the ETH (or even assuming that he actually "abandoned" it), this does not at all imply that Hynek abandoned the idea of alien involvement in form of the IDH/EDH. In fact, as I've said before, the points against the ETH that he brought up are the precise points that lead some people to favor the IDH/EDH.

You're failing to realize that Hynek's "The Case Against E.T." was only meant to argue against the idea that UFOs are physical craft, leaving open the possibility of them as multidimensional. In fact, Hynek modeled the very title of his talk after his friend Jacques Vallee's paper "The Case Against UFOs as Spacecraft". And in the first chapter of Vallee's "Messengers of Deception", entitled "The Case Against the Spacecraft", he presents some of the main points that Hynek later borrowed in his "The Case Against E.T.". All of these points were intended to show the weakness of the ETH in favor of the IDH/EDH. They were not meant to argue against the idea of alien involvement in UFOs, and were in fact used to argue for it, just in a form other than the ETH.


I concede to Hynek's growing belief in IDH/EDH, as I have nothing that states otherwise. I'm speaking to the ETH of alien beings coming from another planet, which by far is the belief linked to UFOs. Also to the apparent validation by Hynek that seems to make the point stronger for the believers of the hypothesis. Which is A) Not true. An educated guess doesn't make a unproven hypothesis any more true... and B) A hypothesis that had weakened in which he had strayed from for others. Therefore, he wouldn't be a strong candidate to quote for the extra-terrestrial (planet visitation) hypothesis by way of his own statements.

What you consider a counterargument, I consider definitive. Your comment that I just don't understand, all he was doing was making counterarguments to his ETH, which in turn stirs people into debating those counterarguments, works for his first 6 points, which he actually states "can be argued". Last point he states "can't be argued". Of course you'll probably say I'm being too literal or something.... that he said this, but really meant this. But, as I've said, your interpretation of his actual words are really only a guess.

You supposedly have one of the most intelligent, informed authorities on UFOs and the ETH, that for years made statements that supported it. But, later in his life after many years of pondering the ETH, he comes back with his renewed views and makes point by point reasons for not supporting it. With one particular point that can not be argued. And makes statements like: "There is nothing in our present or forseeable technology that gives us any clue as to how these distances can be traversed in any reasonable time." Yet, you can still claim he wanted to get people to debate those points. It makes no logical sense. Again, for the sake of your own argument(the fact he didn't completely give it up) it does. But in reality, it doesn't.

There's a thread of familiarity that runs through all of this....


edit on 9-12-2012 by Ectoplasm8 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 04:35 AM
link   
I don't see why the extra terrestrial hypothesis is any different from the extra dimensional hypothesis. Claiming that the UFOs come from "another dimension" is like claiming they come from Candyland. Paul Hill's "Unconventional Flying Objects" makes a good case that strange UFO flight characteristics make sense if we make a few reasonable guesses about their technology.

What bothers me about UFOs is their strange interaction with humans and human society. They don't act like anthropologists or conquerors or space brothers or space critters. They act more like a hallucinations except multiple people from different locations often see the same UFO.

Also, I think the lack of a "reasonable" hypothesis explaining UFOs is the fundamental problem instead of the lack of evidence. If the hypothesis was "Chinese spy planes" or something then scientists would probably be more willing to do their homework. The scientists seemed much more interested in UFOs in the early phases when they thought UFOs might be human technology.
edit on 9-12-2012 by cloudyday because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 06:38 AM
link   
the EDH is really just a scienctific sounding word they choose to describe paranormal phenomena like apparitions, poltergeist, abductions, UFO.

its what hynek n vallee see when they check for pattern in the UFO case database. these patterns along with the hih strangeness of UFO encounters lead them to dismiss ETH.

now justifying EDH is harder than ETH , especially to science minded people of western world. and you cannot explain paranormal stuffs with material/physical science.

if UFO researchers are only allowing physical / material science to explain UFO then they will be lead into ETH and nutsnbolt UFO hypothesis. Vallee said that modern US UFO researxh are evolving int a belief system of ETH/conspicary/roswell/dulce and they are not doing investigative field works anymore. in other words their mind already closed. These researchers also dismiss cases that got high strangeness / poltergeist / apparition / paranormal aspects. they focus on legends and word of mouth instead interviewing witnesses and doing field works, they focus on crashed UFOs, dead aliens, MJ12, dulce, goverment/CIA conspiracy..



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by milomilo
the EDH is really just a scienctific sounding word they choose to describe paranormal phenomena like apparitions, poltergeist, abductions, UFO.

its what hynek n vallee see when they check for pattern in the UFO case database. these patterns along with the hih strangeness of UFO encounters lead them to dismiss ETH.

now justifying EDH is harder than ETH , especially to science minded people of western world. and you cannot explain paranormal stuffs with material/physical science.

if UFO researchers are only allowing physical / material science to explain UFO then they will be lead into ETH and nutsnbolt UFO hypothesis. Vallee said that modern US UFO researxh are evolving int a belief system of ETH/conspicary/roswell/dulce and they are not doing investigative field works anymore. in other words their mind already closed. These researchers also dismiss cases that got high strangeness / poltergeist / apparition / paranormal aspects. they focus on legends and word of mouth instead interviewing witnesses and doing field works, they focus on crashed UFOs, dead aliens, MJ12, dulce, goverment/CIA conspiracy..



It seems like you've highlighted the real reason Western scientists won't do their homework on UFOs - scientific/materialist philosophy.

I wonder if scientists in non-Western countries have a different attitude towards ufology?



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   
too many scientists simply WILL NOT TOUCH the ufo debate. it threatens their reputations to be associated with what is, by design from those at the top, a subject of ridicule. too many 'establishment' scientific minds value the next government grant, and their peers' acceptance, above any real investigation into the ufo issue. the 'ridicule and denial' technique has been played masterfully over the years and still holds sway in general.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by RoScoLaz
 


Indeed, and it is to the detriment of science that this attitude holds sway. Not just scientist either- pilots, police and military men all avoid reporting sightings as it has a hugely damaging effect on their careers. Oh, they will tell you in private, but go on the record? forget it. Makes you wonder how many sightings and encounters go unreported because of this bigotry.

I always think about the airline pilot- trusted to handle hundreds of tons of flying metal at great speed, with hundreds of human passengers day in, day out- trained at observing the sky and making balanced judgements. That pilot puts in an official UFO report and they find themselves off flight rotation in short order. Ridiculous.


I forget which report said it, but the US government identified pretty early on that scientists would be one of the last people to accept ET, and be negatively emotionally affected by their discovery, as it undermines their accepted beliefs.
edit on 9-12-2012 by Thunda because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   
In reality, xenologists do believe that extra-terrestrial life exists. They just don't believe ET are visiting us due to non contact via concrete proof (SETI and physical evidence) and their dismissal of higlhy evolved, alternative methods of transport through the cosmos; folding of time/space or vibrating through dimensions. It's the lack of proof ... they say truth is stranger than fiction'.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Brighter

Your conception of evidence is conveniently limited. It's not the case that the only evidence is a physical specimen that can be examined in a lab. It's pretty clear that you haven't done much research into this subject, yet have no problem offering your opinions.


Well, I was wondering how long it would take for the "you just don't know the evidence" card would be tossed out
... Please enlighten me with just one case that shows your view of this "evidence" of alien involvement. Don't tell me to research it myself or read this or that book. You obviously think you posses the knowledge, time to back it up with your best case, or best couple of cases. In fact, take me out of it, so you don't have the excuse of not being able to prove it to me on my terms. Show the case that you think would change the average "on-the-fence" general publics view to favor alien involvement. I'm curious to see what this evidence is.



And it seems you yourself don't have much of any evidence to support that value judgment. In fact, there are very accomplished scientists that would disagree with you.



"First remember what the U stands for in UFO. Now, there's a fascinating frailty in the human mind. That psychologist know all about and it's called argument from ignorance...... Someone sees lights flashing in the sky. They've never seen it before. They don't understand what it is. They say 'A UFO'. The U stands for Unidentified. So they say, I don't know what it is, it must be aliens from outerspace visiting from another planet. Well, if you don't know what it is... that's where your conversation should stop.

Re: UFOs - We know, not only from research in psychology, but simple empirical evidence in the history of science, that the lowest form of evidence that exists in this world, is eyewitness testimony."

....maybe you did see visitors from another galaxy. I need more than your eyewitness testimony. In modern times, I need more than your photograph.

I'm not saying we haven't been visited, I'm saying the evidence thus far brought forth, does not satisfy the standards of evidence, that any scientist would require for any other claim that you're going to walk into the lab with.

There people that look up all the time. Like for example the community of amateur astronomers in the world........ UFO sightings are not higher among amateur astronomers than they are in the general public. In fact, they are lower.


Neil DeGrasse Tyson

These, among many other comments.
Source



"The probability of primitive life developing on a suitable planet may be extremely low, or it may be high, but aliens intelligent enough to beam signals into space may also be smart enough to build civilization-destroying weapons like nuclear bombs, he said. More likely, he added, is that primitive life is likely to develop, but intelligent life as we know it is exceedingly rare."

"We don't appear to have been visited by aliens," Hawking said, adding "that he discounts reports of UFOs. Why would they only appear to cranks and weirdoes?"


Stephen Hawking

Source



In the vastness of the Cosmos there must be other civilizations far older and more advanced than ours..... What counts is not what sounds plausible, not what we would like to believe, not what one or two witnesses claim, but only what is supported by hard evidence rigorously and skeptically examined. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

For all I know we may be visited by a different extraterrestrial civilization every second Tuesday, but there's no support for this appealing idea. The extraordinary claims are not supported by extraordinary evidence.


Carl Sagan

Source



But even this is to assume that scientists are somehow in a better position to pass judgment on this phenomenon.


You pretty much negated Hynek's opinion with that statement. Maybe it only works when you don't agree with a scientists view though?


In fact, I'd argue that scientists that dismiss this subject out of hand as 'ridiculous' are not acting as scientists when they pronounce such judgments, but expressing their more base, uneducated natures, simply parroting the status quo in order to 'fit in,' without in general having done any real research into the phenomenon.


Or maybe because there hasn't been any real proof to back it up? It's a silly assessment to say that scientists would ignore the phenomenon for fear of ridicule. Where do you draw this assumption from? You do seem to interpret others words to fit within your frame of thinking though.

I'm fairly certain that discovering a life form from outer space or dimension would be on the list of wanted discoveries by most scientists. Anything otherwise wouldn't be scientific. Didn't Hynek do exactly what any other scientist would do as far as researching UFOs? How far did he get? Just hypotheses, or something more concrete? If there was something incredible that came about from the many years of his research that showed aliens are here or have been here, or that UFOs actually are from outer space, it would have been known.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Ectoplasm8
 


Oh, Ectoplasm. You really are being so disingenuous with your statements. If you have investigated the field as you claim, you would know that there are many cases of UFO encounters that have evidence attached to them- in fact, that is one of the reasons Dr Hynek came up with his classification method, in order to differentiate the different types of evidence associated with each case.

If you want one case with lots of physical evidence attached to it, then Im sure you will be aware of the Colares UFO 'flap' in Brazil- a very lightweight summary contained here:

en.wikipedia.org...

But then I would hope you were already familiar with this case- but then if you were, why would you say "Please enlighten me with just one case that shows your view of this "evidence" of alien involvement. "? Or are you going to try and say this was somehow the US military on a covert op?

And personally, I find your inclusion of Hawkins "cranks and weirdoes" crack to be offensive. But then you knew that too.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
Well, I was wondering how long it would take for the "you just don't know the evidence" card would be tossed out
... Please enlighten me with just one case that shows your view of this "evidence" of alien involvement. Don't tell me to research it myself or read this or that book. You obviously think you posses the knowledge, time to back it up with your best case, or best couple of cases. In fact, take me out of it, so you don't have the excuse of not being able to prove it to me on my terms. Show the case that you think would change the average "on-the-fence" general publics view to favor alien involvement. I'm curious to see what this evidence is.


I didn't think it would be possible for someone to misinterpret someone else's views to such a degree. This is actually pretty astounding. Please tell me where I said that I thought there was evidence of alien involvement.

My comments were related to UFOs, and not aliens. Most "skeptics" have enormous difficulty thinking clearly and distinguishing between the two issues, which would be ironic for anyone pretending to agree with Hynek's differentiation between the two.

As to your quotes by Tyson, Hawking and Sagan, did you read the original post of this thread? (I'm asking this in earnest.) What makes you think that training in science and mathematics are skills directly relevant to assessments in a separate field? Would you be happy with hiring your personal tax professional to offer you marital advice? Again, you're making the precise kind of erroneous assumption that was pointed out in the original post of this very thread.


But even this is to assume that scientists are somehow in a better position to pass judgment on this phenomenon.



Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
You pretty much negated Hynek's opinion with that statement. Maybe it only works when you don't agree with a scientists view though?


Absolutely not. I wasn't basing my reliance on Hynek insofar as he was a scientist, but insofar as he was a clear thinker who seriously researched the entire UFO phenomena for decades.


In fact, I'd argue that scientists that dismiss this subject out of hand as 'ridiculous' are not acting as scientists when they pronounce such judgments, but expressing their more base, uneducated natures, simply parroting the status quo in order to 'fit in,' without in general having done any real research into the phenomenon.



Originally posted by Ectoplasm8
Or maybe because there hasn't been any real proof to back it up? It's a silly assessment to say that scientists would ignore the phenomenon for fear of ridicule. Where do you draw this assumption from? You do seem to interpret others words to fit within your frame of thinking though.


Once again, I'm referring to the UFO phenomenon, and not possible alien involvement.

No, it is not a "silly assessment to say that scientists would ignore the phenomenon for fear of ridicule". If you've ever been in a real academic environment, it would be painfully obvious that there are things that you talk about, and there are things that you don't even mention. And you don't mention these things because your job and livelihood (i.e., your ability to actually put food on the table) depend on your not mentioning it. And when you do mention it, you tout the party line for fear of ridicule. All of this has to do with ingrained cultural biases and taboos. It has nothing to do with whether or not a line of inquiry is interesting or justified.

If I could make a suggestion, I'd recommend taking a course in symbolic logic or critical thinking at the college level, if that's possible. Please don't take this as condescending, but it's very difficult to have a clear conversation with you, although it seems like you could have some interesting things to say. You just need to be able to express your ideas more clearly, and to be able to assess someone else's views and pick up on some finer points with more accuracy.





new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join



atslive.com

hi-def

low-def